Business Law 13th Edition by Frank Cross, Kenneth Clarkson, Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 1

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
Supreme Court of the United States, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1659, ___L.Ed. ___ (2013).
IN THE LAN GUA GE OF THE COURT
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.
* * * * * * * A canon of statutory interpretation known as the presumption against extraterritorial application * * * provides that when a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none and reflects the presumption that United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world. [Emphasis added.] This presumption serves to protect against unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations [that] could result in international discord.
* * * Petitioners contend that even if the presumption applies, the text, history, and purposes of the ATS rebut it for causes of action brought under that statute. [But] nothing in the text of the statute suggests that Congress intended causes of action recognized under it to have extraterritorial reach. The ATS covers actions by aliens for violations of the law of nations, but that does not imply extraterritorial reach-such violations affecting aliens can occur either within or outside the United States. [Emphasis added.]
* * * * Nor does the historical background against which the ATS was enacted overcome the presumption * * *. When Congress passed the ATS, three principal offenses against the law of nations had been identified * * * : violation of safe conducts, infringement of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy.
* * * * * * * Prominent contemporary examples [of the first two offenses that occurred in the United States] provide no support for the proposition that Congress expected causes of action to be brought under the statute for violations of the law of nations occurring abroad. * * * Piracy typically occurs on the high seas, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or any other country. Applying U.S. law to pirates, however, does not typically impose the sovereign will of the United States onto conduct occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of another sovereign, and therefore carries less direct foreign policy consequences.
* * * * Finally, there is no indication that the ATS was passed to make the United States a uniquely hospitable forum for the enforcement of international norms. * * * Indeed, the parties offer no evidence that any nation, meek or mighty, presumed to do such a thing.
DECISION AND REMEDY The United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS, nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption, and all the conduct about which the petitioners complained took place outside the United States.
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION?What are the ramifications for the respondents of the ruling in this case?
THE Global DIMENSION?If the Court had adopted the petitioners' view, how might U.S. citizens have been affected?